Sunday, June 29, 2014

Some disturbing trends are taking place in our population. Recently Fox News reported an alarming drop off in marriages in the United States. It seems that more and more of the American population is choosing to simply live together than enter matrimony.

A lot of reasons could be named. One has been the unfairness with which fathers are often treated in custody cases. But it goes deeper. Perhaps it has something to do with the acceptance of divorce.

Former Idaho Congressman, Curtis Bowers cited "easy divorce" as a contributor to the demise of the American family. In his documentary, "Agenda: Grinding America Down," Bowers revealed a Communist plot to replace the American father with government. This chilling expose is scorned by the far left. In effect, it unmasked the entire liberal game plan to compromise America. Without question, it's working!

Historically, the most frequent cause of divorce was infidelity. Today, as more states adopt the "no fault" standard, other motivations come into play. Most common are instances where the partners simply become tired of each other. Frequently "marital weariness" is suggested, even encouraged by society as a whole.

It starts with the notion that the offended has been short changed in the relationship. More often than not, the wife sees herself sacrificing all for one man. The longing for a better house, better car, better clothing, more disposable income and more free time become dominant as her attention turns inward. Television and Tabloids speak of another world; an attractive world, complete with polished, self fulfilled, successful people. This is that mythical world of the "Diva." In essence, "not as it is, but as it should be!" The question becomes, "why not me?"

What is a "Diva?" More specifically, where is the connection with Bower's documentary?
Let us first explore the multitude of "Diva" definitions. The original meaning, by the way, came from the Latin word, "Goddess."

According to Wikipedia, a Diva is "a celebrated female singer; a woman of outstanding talent in the world of opera and by extension in theatre, cinema and popular music."

Merriam-Webster calls it, "a usually glamorous woman who is preeminent in her field of activity."

Maxmillian Dictionary adds, "a woman, especially a celebrity, who thinks that she is very important and difficult to please."

The more modernistic, Urban Dictionary adds, "a female performer, ususally an opera singer, who is extremely talented but very imperious and tempermental." It adds, "a woman who has self confidence, self respect and hell swagger. She knows who she is and exactly where she is going. Her style and attitude are on point, even when she is not trying. People typically gravitate to her because of her swagger."

Urban goes on to add that the woman is "usually perceived as bitch or self absorbed, which in some cases, they are..."in effect,"a bitchy woman who must have things her way, or no way at all. She's "often rude and belittles people, believes that everyone is beneath her, and thinks that she is much more loved that she really is." In short, she is "selfish, spoiled and overly dramatic."

"Prima Donna" and "Drama Queen" are synonymous words for "Diva."

Chatslang.com goes one step further in using the word "rude" as the modern day translation. Per Chatslang, "Diva, originally used to refer to a talented female singer, now refers to women in general who think the world evolves around them and are rude to others."

Per the free dictionary.com, "The thing that even Moshinsky doesn't come to grips with is how the dictionary meaning of Diva(Goddess) degraded into that of a self-centered creature who makes ridulous demands, thereby losing all wisdom and humanity, the very thing that defines a goddess."

Could it all have been by design?

Have you watched "Keeping up with the Kardashians?" For those who have, you've already put "two plus two" together!

Two weeks ago, I happened to see an episode that portrayed the older Kardashian advising her younger, married sister, to "move on." In other words, "divorce" your inattentive husband because, "you only lived once." The advice came after little sister complained that hubby wouldn't attend counciling.

There is never an excuse for not trying! In reality, however, if the younger Kardashian was reflectant of her older sister, she, like big sister was your classic, "Diva." Any counciling would have centered around "me,me,me!" Not, "we, we, we!"

Often, "Divas" float from relationship to relationship. The type man generally attracted is one who refuses to "let their partner in." Because, it's pretty much a given: The typical "Diva" has no room in her heart for a significant other or husband, let alone a child! In short, "why love someone who is incapable of loving back?"

In this case, little sister's husband likely anticipated in advance that the counciling would be nothing more than a bitch session, accomplishing nothing. Since he likely never gave his heart to her, the loss would be minimal, if even existent.

Such are the trials of a modern day "Diva." Goddess has somehow been transformed into the Kardashians! Disquieting is how this make believe family has been utterly glamorized by the media. Perhaps it's the illusion created from trendy clothes, exotic residences and a fat banking account: accepted symbols of the American success story? But are the Kardashians actually no more than strategically placed agents of the unattainable?

Defenders of Kim and the girls consider them, "together," and going places. In essence, "role models" for today's enlightened woman! It's about "getting the most out of life!" You must, after all, "love yourself first!"

Through the difficulty of an America in recession, reduced income and rising costs of living, by-products of the Obama economy, frustrated American women have welcomed a respite. The Kardashians have subtly introduced a question: "Don't you deserve better?"

When you are struggling, it is easy to find faults. With your family, employer and especially your partner. Frustration can often be at least temporarily appeased with harsh words and condescending reminders. Unfortunately, over time, it becomes a habit. Gradually, reasons to stay together give way to reasons for breaking up.

The sad reality is that the solution almost always proves to be worse than the perceived problem. In some cases, much worse! Homes are broken. Children are permanently impacted. The original reason behind marriage is disregarded. The "Diva disception" focuses on "what's in it for me?" Not, "what can I do to make it better." Or, "am I doing all that I can?"

Traditionalists remind, "that's why man and woman were meant to marry." Yet in todays thinking, it's "okay" to not even define a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Maybe that's our starting point. Perhaps it's time that we demand a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Per the Kardashians, "it matters not where you poke your thing!" Maybe the time has come for these "guilded mamas" to be called out; for what they are and what they are shoveling!

Not to mention both the objective and the desired end result!

Bowers referenced an almost forgotten, 1958 guidebook entitled "The Naked Communist." In this writing, a plan to replace the American father with government is flagrantly presented.

Without question, the American family unit is the greatest obstacle to universal acceptance of Communism. To undermine it begins with destroying the marital union. The key to making this happen is to use the mass media to create dissatisfaction between marital partners.

Sadly, ill advised women often trade a passable marriage for a single parent existence that leaves them worse off than before; financially and emotionally. They are usually forced to turn to government in an effort to bridge the unexpected solace that nearly always accompanies divorce. And it all began because they bought into the Diva illusion of "you deserve better, because you are better!"

On a positive note, a few of the brighter women are connecting the dots. And, they don't like what they see unfolding! They view it as intentional manipulation aimed at directing women toward a path designed to increase dependence on government!

Unfortunately for the left, these enlightened ones are not naive! They know who the accomplices are. Media and celebrities top the list. Most disturbing is how fully focused these accomplices are on their cause! They have an agenda. It includes loneliness, suffering, misery and ultimate hopelessness for millions of American women! Has Communism ever delivered anything to the contrary? Most importantly, can anything be done to thwart these efforts?

Maybe. There is a saying: "Hell hath no fury like that of a scorned woman!"

It has been noted that "women are often meaner than men." Could this be a hint at things to come? As in, just retribution for those who would attempt to destroy something as sacred as the family? Could be!

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Have you called American Express lately? How about A T & T? Or, Dish Network? It's probable that you guessed that the person on the other end of the line was not local!

More often than not, when we call these companies and others, we find ourselves talking to "Jerry from New Dehli, Jon from Taiwan" or "Pricilla from Manila." They are relatively pleasant people, at least most of the time. In the majority of cases, their English while strained, is good enough to handle rudimentary requests.

Jerry, Jon and Pricilla work cheap. That's why Fortune 500 companies seek out their services. In America, we have a current national minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Democrats and moderate Republicans contend that it's too low. Jerry, Jon and Pricilla would be delighted with such a bounty! In fact, they'll do this job for a fraction of it! How much of a fraction? Try $200-300 per month. In some cases, less.

American Express, A T & T and Dish Network contend that "because Jerry, Jon and Pricilla will work for less," we can pass the savings on to our customers. How much is actually passed on is another subject for a different post. But, it might be surprising how much is passed on to the consumer and how much finds it's way to the profit ledger!

Either way, it still saves Americans some money. Question is, "at what price?"

Identity theft is the fast growing crime in the world. Everyone is aware of it. Including the large corporations. But are they really addressing the problem? Let's put it another way! How often are we reliquishing all, or at least part of our social security numbers to Jerry, Jon or Pricilla? If you answered "most if not all of the time," you are correct. Herein lies the problem.

In America, any person who works in banking, insurance, securities, real estate, or any position requiring access to the most private of information, must be properly vetted. In other words, they must be fingerprinted and undergo an F.B.I. background check. Jerry, Jon and Pricilla are not subjected to such analysis.

Why they are not subjected to comparable scrutity? Part of it stems from the absence of reliable providers. Most, however, goes back to the price paid for their services. Can you expect much more for what you are paying them? Never mind that you may be compromising an Americans' privacy! And, lest we forget! Some of the world's finest hackers reside in the Far East.

Oops!!!

Proposed in "E" is for English is a moratorium on any offshore outsourcing, requiring all or part of an Americans' social security number. Obviously, this would have a huge impact in America and on the world. The large companies would cry foul!
Their argument would hold credence. Let us briefly evaluate it.

Jerry, Jon and Pricilla are typically paid less than $300 per month. In New Dehli, Kaohsiung or Manila, you can get by on that wage. A manager making $600 per month can live quite well. Benefits are almost never included.

The current American minimum wage of $7.25 is under heavy scrutiny. Democrats and moderate Republicans are insisting that it be raised. Then there are benefits, such as health insurance. A logical suggestion just got more complicated. Two problems stand in the way of further consideration.

1. The unions of these large companies would cast an immediate "thumbs down." As one A T & T representative warned, "The employees union would never allow it."

2. The perception that $7.25 per hour is too low and that nobody would want these jobs.

Examining # 2 first, we find two age groups most likely to be interested.

1. Under 25 workers. $7.25 per hour translates to $290 per week, or $15,080 per year. Not much! But, enough to get out of the house and be on your own, if you have a roommate. Maybe not in New York, Boston or San Francisco. But, in Little Rock, Louisville or Pensacola, it's doable.

2. 62 and older workers. These Americans qualify for early Social Security. But Medicare is still a few years away. $290 per week and enrollment on a group health insurance plan can be a Godsend!

Even at $15,080 per year, the numbers still don't work. And, even if they did, how would proponents confront "gadflies" such as Elizabeth Warren who would certainly scoff at the "hundreds of thousands of low wage jobs" being "dumped" on our shores!

Subject closed? Not hardly. Fact is, Jerry from New Dehli may not be as great of a bargain as originally perceived. 80% of these offshore associates arguably lack the necessary English skills to adequately do these jobs. They can read from a script. But, when the question becomes too much, they will put the English speaking caller on hold and ultimately transfer them. The end result: A lot of wasted time; for the American!

I can speak conversational Russian. At a party, especially if the other person has had a few drinks, my Russian can actually sound pretty good. With a script and sufficient time to rehearse, I can sound like I speak good Russian. Yet, if I were forced to handle an issue on the phone in Russian, with a caller who spoke only Russian, the deficiency would quickly become obvious!

In reality the American is probably worth "three to perhaps five Jerrys!" The numbers are getting better.

True, those in "right to work' states would be the probable beneficiaries of these jobs. But, that's okay! Remember! We have two million less people working full time today as compared to 2008. The current administration has conveniently sidestepped this truism.

The world would probably be outraged! Wasn't it George W. Bush who said that "we live in a global society" and these offshore workers spent money with American companies such as Walmart and McDonalds?

Thomas Friedman described in his book, "The World is Flat," the importance of "leveling the global playing field." In practice, the "unions force the wages up, companies subsequently move the jobs offshore." It rather simple, when you put it into proper perspective! Wouldn't such a proposal be at odds with this objective?

The real "rock in Americas' craw," amounts to the perception that our government no longer places the needs of Americans' first. Privacy? Who cares! It's all about "a buck!"

Most disquieting is the notion that many companies are going offshore in an effort to circumvent American laws. The Debt Recovery Industry in the most prominent perpetrator.

Last week I had an extended conversation with a "thirty-something" Haitian woman who reported that an offshore representative from Midland Credit had threatened to take her nine-year-old daughter away from her, if she did not immediately pay a disputed $5,000 credit card debt. The lady had a green card. But, she was not yet naturalized.
She asked me, "Can they do this?"

Proposing such an identity theft prevention plan and making it a 2016 campaign issue would be risky for any politician. The Fortune 500 companies wouldn't take kindly to it, to put it mildly. Perhaps it is because the question crosses party lines like no other.

Contrary to popular opinion, nationalism is not synonymous with fasism, racism or bigotry. While probably unfashionable to the globalist elite, a concept aimed at protecting Americans from identity theft could catch on like a West Texas prairie fire in August!

Sunday, June 8, 2014

Passage of a fourth grade English proficiency exam as a prerequisite for a voter Identification card?

"English only" for literally every form of official use? This would include drivers license testing.

A voter I.D. card that would include a photograph?

A ban on any and all offshore outsourcing for jobs requiring use of all or part of an Americans' social security number?

An immigration plan that mirrors that of Australia, clearly giving favor to applicants from N.A.T.O. countries?

To many, these ideas would seem both practical and logical. Unfortunately, they are totally counter to globalization. In essence, they present a roadblock to the "New World Order," so passionately revered by both Republican and Democrat Establishments.

"The World is Flat," Thomas Friedman's wordy analysis, outlines the globalist plan for "leveling the playing field." Americans must however, learn how to play ball! In accepting the promise of a more homogenized planet, we should be willing to compromise our standards, including our standard of living. The goal: to allow other nations, other peoples to "share in the hegenomy."

Anyone or anything that that represents a contrary objective is viewed as "out of touch, racist, bigoted" and, of course, "politically incorrect."

The aforementioned ideas are the topic of my book. For those who have not reviewed
"E" is for English, you now know. And, you can safely say, "Jeff, it'll never happen!"

Here is the real problem with the book's proposals. They are totally anti-global. They are 100% Nationalist. They are based on the premise that "charity begins at home." In other words, "America first."

Beginning with the minimum wage. Democrats and all too many Republicans favor some sort of an increase. Sounds like a good idea, right? What's the problem?

There is nothing that better illustrates the need for term limits than this issue. In reality, if the minimum wage is raised to say, $10.10 an hour, Fortune 500 companies will simply move the jobs offshore. Cheap help is available in India, Philippines, Taiwan and Indonesia. For small business, it isn't so easy! The end result is raising prices. But that's Capitalism! Right? Seriously! Who can live on $7.25 per hour?

Imagine climbing a tree. The first branch is typically the most difficult. If you saw it off, climbing just became that much more difficult!

Now imagine going to a garage sale. Everything for sale is something that another person didn't want or need. But in the stack, you see many things that you can use. Maybe it's a comforter, or a toaster or even some used golf clubs. Perhaps you see a scratch or a stain. But, for your purposes, your immediate needs, it works!

Wait a minute! If you force companies to return these low paying jobs to our shores, won't that cause a chain reaction in Bombay and Manila? In those places $400 per month is a livable wage. $750 per month amounts to a comfortable living. Shouldn't Americans be more multi-dimensional in thinking? Especially, in light of the fact that these citizens of India and Philippines are spending their earnings at Walmart and McDonalds! George W. Bush made this argument!

Two considerations. (a) We are not talking about all jobs; only those utilizing all or part of an Americans' social security number. It's about deterring identity theft. (b) These low wage jobs are not without worth in America.

Let's examine (b) first. Most minimum wage jobs are taken by teenagers. You must start somewhere. The majority of these jobs are created by small business. Raise the wage, hiring becomes more difficult for these job creators. In other words, you just sawed off the lower branch!

Older workers(62+) are also prospects for $7.25 per hour positions. They qualify for early social security. A $16,000 per year job will not compromise their entitlement. Most of these jobs include medical benefits. It might also be mention that these jobs require minimal training. It's like that quilt with a stain or that toaster with a scratch! Medicare won't kick in for a few more years. In the meanwhile, this will suffice nicely!

Deterring identity theft is sufficient reason for consideration of (a). Identity theft is the world's fastest growing crime. Offshore workers are not subject to the same kind of hiring scrutiny as stateside workers endure. Some of the world's finest "hackers" live in the far east.

Whether it's American Express, A T & T or even Dish Network, four digits of a social security number, even debit account numbers of Americans, are made available to "Jerry from New Dehli, Jon from Taiwan and Prisilla from Manila!" Sure, they work for cheap! But this is about protecting the privacy of American citizens! Not a "buck!"

Obviously, this is a "taboo" argument! In many ways it's like immigration reform. To propose that America consider a plan similar to Australia's would be scorned by the far left. They would call proponents racists and bigots. Why? Because Australia requires that (a) the applicant be fluent in English and(b) the applicant have a higher education or a trade.

Crazy? Not hardly. And, the "E" concept goes one step further! It actually proposes that preference be given to applicants under 30 years of age. And, last but not least, it gives applicants fron N.A.T.O. countries a preference.

I can hear it now! "Most of the N.A.T.O. countries are white. Are you not attempting to arrest the decline of the white majority in America?" And English fluency? "Would that not discriminate against Hispanics?"

The proposal promotes requirement of six years of a second language. But the choice of languages is left up to the individual school districts. The "slow ascent" would result in learning both a language plus the historical and geographical attributes of peoples' utilizing that language. In the end, our kids would learn how to think! This is at odds with the "dumbing down" goal of the New World Order!

For those illegally in the country, "if you can pass a 10th grade English test," a "path" to citizenship is yours! Same would hold true for any International earning a Doctorate. Isn't this the "Dream Act?" No. Only the individual applicant is included!

Literacy tests, any literacy test, will result in a constitutional fight. There is no way that it can be done without an adjustment to the constitution.

Voter I.D. laws are already in effect and being challenged every step of the way. To make this part of comprehension legislation would result in an outcry of "voter suppression." Oh well!

In short, "E" is for English introduces some thought provoking ideas. To package them into a single amendment to the constitution would be a longshot at best! Unless...

A constitutional convention is held. Article Five is invoked. Angry leaders from states ready to bolt decide to bypass Congress. Several measures are adopted, including the "E" Amendment. Suddenly, we have a new America.

Other measures are on the wish list. They include a balanced budget amendment, term limits for Congressman and Senators, and the end of the I.R.S..

The 16th amendment was never ratified by the required number of states. A large number of Americans would like to see the 14th and 17th amendment repealed. What about the "E" Amendment?

A Constitutional convention will happen through reactionary reasoning. It will occur only because the majority of Americans have given up on their leaders, not on their form of government. It might be the preamble to a peaceful separation of states.

You must go back to 1861 to find the nation as divided as it is today. Unlike then, however, the divide is more ideological than sectional. The two sides are approaching an impasse. Unlike 1861, we don't live in the "Age of Innocense." We have television. We have the Internet. Nobody wants an "1860's style" bloodbath!

Maybe we could co-exist as two nations. Without question we could be allies and trading partners, as with Canada. The question becomes, "where" would we draw the boundaries? Would some of the individual states separate, as was the case with West Virginia? In California, Maryland and Colorado, we have already seen inclinations to consider such initiatives.

The deep seeded argument is actually about "to what degree" should the federal government be involved in the lives of individual Americans. Perhaps an experiment, peaceful in nature, is imminent.

In many ways, we can already see the lines being drawn. But, there are some distinctions. They are especially noted in the larger states.

Both sides are convinced that their interpretation is the correct one. Hence, as in 1861, we have a "clash of perceptions."

Those of the "Federalist persuasion" are certain that the second that government is reduced and regulations relaxed, the economy will "take off like a rocket," to use Texas Governor Rick Perry's words. The other side sees a more "France like" America, where the emphasis is placed upon a "cradle to grave" partnership with government and the people.

The middle ground is shrinking; along with the middle class.

Would the "anti-Federalist" forces allow such a peaceful separation? Possibly not! Unless, they are as arrogant as they appear to be! Let's assume for the moment that they are.

Those states opting to go with a more "10th amendment focused" vision, implement their theory. The federal government becomes increasingly insignificant in their lives. Regulations are reduced. Taxes reduced. Job creation becomes the number one priority. So does the need for financial independence. Which translates to energy independence. Suddenly, these states are both the "world's supermarket and filling station!"

Due to their lack of resources, both agricultural and energy, the "anti-federalist" states are forced to "crank up the printing presses." Otherwise, their entitlement society will quickly become derailed. Within five years, it's possible that their entire argument would be lost! At that juncture, the only way out would be to "crawl" to their American brothers and beg for readmission.

Proponents of both Federalism and "E" would predict a reunion similar to that of East and West Germany. With one exception: The kids of the returning states would be less individualized and more institutionalized than those of the Federalist states. In other words, "behind" in all aspects of their studies.

You could also expect some map changes, designed to reduce representation of the returning parts of America. In the end, the argument would be over! America would have decided, once and for all, that we were the United States of America. Not, the United American States.

Acceptance of a revised constitution that included the "E" amendment would be required for the returning states. Suddenly, we would have a new world. Complete with a new United Nations.

When one nation with superior military capabilities, is both feeding and providing energy to its "customers," the promise of peace and stability can never be greater. Why any American would strive for anything less is questionable.

Perhaps it is due to their failure to grasp what America truly is. At the heart of the "E" Amendment is a crazy notion. It's called "America first." It is based on the premise that you can only serve one master.